Group 1:

  • How do we take platforms to a higher level
  • Develop a framework and take it forward
  • Must suit donor interests
  • Strong M&E component
  • Research, governance, and institutions
  • How does it fit with CRP?
    • Should it?
    • What are the benefits?
  • The framework can provide an umbrella that the CRPs feed into
  • Technical input is necessary within/outside of the CRPs
  • There should be an international dimension, but we should also
    • Quantify regional impacts
    • Develop a more regionally inclusive component
  • Africa Rising given as an example (5 yr USAID program - feed the future)
    • Connected to ILRI in Ethiopian Highlands
    • It should blend with NBC well
  • Suitable with CPR 1.1 and 1.2
  • Institutionalizing platforms at a higher level
    • Donors and governments
    • Multi-sectoral
  • Donor groups may require government support for platform
    • Perhaps we should focus on this and no on the CRPs
  • Important to remember the following
    • Nile Basin is a highly politicized region
    • There is huge economic interest
  • Must create a platform that accommodates different groups and incorporates continued research



Group 2:

  • This group presented two different but related visions
  • Vision 1
    • For NRM to function resilience, equity, and ecosystems must all be managed by a community led effort
    • Innovation platform help make this possible
    • A understanding of different driver is essential
    • Multi-scale is best
  • But it makes it difficult to unite with any one CRP
    • Framed around ecosystem services and integration of water usage and systems
  • Vision 2
    • Vision 2 requires the components of vision 1
    • Shift focus to drivers
  • Population
  • Climate change
    • The transboundary political economy is very important
    • Need more on strategies
    • Kept coming back to basin SRP but we should be more visionary



Group 3:

  • Began with the question “what’s the point?”
    • Answer: to improve livelihoods
  • At this point we don’t know how research affects livelihoods
  • All other research fits into livelihoods agenda
  • Livelihoods has been the central driver from the beginning
    • It should not be tacked on or viewed as secondary
  • Understanding livelihoods requires a new research strategy
  • Stakeholder-driven, participatory approach can be very piece-meal
  • An important question is...at what level do we address livelihoods
    • Household
    • Community
    • Individual
    • Basin
  • The termite project was given as an example
    • Community identified
    • Tied to livelihoods
    • Room for improvement
  • The termite project shows that issues related to livelihoods can be viewed through other lenses (livestock, water management, fodder, etc...)
  • The lessons learned from the termite project are a good starting point from which the future of the program can be driven
  • Must be participatory, consultative, and adaptive
    • Identify and adapt more quickly
  • Need a better mechanism for how to make research and projects more adaptive from beginning
  • Feedback is important - what we learn generates something relevant
  • Group three focused more on design strategy than vision - they began their discussion with issues around the different CRPs (poverty, land degradation, and livelihood)
  • A hypothetical was proposed...”assuming there is a change”
    • How is the research relevant/adaptive?
  • Systems are dynamic so economic analysis is necessary
  • How does this research contribute to economic development
  • Some questions
    • What is the scale?
    • Institutional arrangement?
  • The answer is best found in the CRPs
    • Institutional change should be worked into framework from beginning
    • Still talking about landscape as the best scale
  • IPs at different levels
  • Adaptive decision making
  • How to make ecological and economic compatible
  • What are the expected changes 10 or 20 years from now?
  • What are the visible vs. underlying problems?
  • Policy dimension is essential